WAzion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses 'Consume creditos de IA' (consumes AI credits), warning of the cost side-effect. However, it omits critical behavioral details: whether the operation is synchronous, expected response time, output format (since no output schema exists), or error handling when insufficient conversation history is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core action, but is marred by the trailing artifact '[query]' which appears to be a template placeholder or copy-paste error. This reduces clarity and suggests incomplete editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters with overlapping time-window options (days, hours, last_n) and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks guidance on parameter precedence (which wins if both days and last_n are provided), expected response structure, or handling of edge cases like empty conversation histories.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the structured definitions already explain all 8 parameters including the enum values for `summary_type`. The description repeats the summary types but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., format differences, length expectations) beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it 'Genera un resumen de una conversacion usando IA' (generates a conversation summary using AI) and lists the specific summary types available. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like `get_conversations_summary` or `get_conversation_detail`, leaving ambiguity about when to prefer this AI-powered version over standard retrieval tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., minimum conversation history required), when to choose between `days`, `hours`, or `last_n` parameters, or whether this should be used before or after other analysis tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.